291
291
Nov 13, 2012
11/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 291
favorite 0
quote 1
marginal rate back to 39.6 we're not going to do a deal, and i can tell you that the guys in the house and boehner, they really want to do this, this limiting deductions, limiting loopholes, raising effective rates, but lowering nominal rates. they want to do it that way but the president may say no and those guys in the house will say no and we might, it might happen. >> it might, but look, this is a leadership moment. we have a a leader who now has second term. he's a president. he's a fascinating individual in many respects. he's part of the problem. >> what gives you any indication he'll lead in this case? >> maybe he'll wake up to the fact that he has a chance to cut through the polarization and leave a winning legacy. this is his chance to rise above. give him a button. >> there you go. thank you for that, steve. we have more ahead from steve. coming up, we're going to talk about several stocks on the move ahead of the opening bell. we'll get down to "mad money's" jim cramer. "squawk on the street," jim cramer right after this. sometimes investing opportunities are hard to spot. you have to
marginal rate back to 39.6 we're not going to do a deal, and i can tell you that the guys in the house and boehner, they really want to do this, this limiting deductions, limiting loopholes, raising effective rates, but lowering nominal rates. they want to do it that way but the president may say no and those guys in the house will say no and we might, it might happen. >> it might, but look, this is a leadership moment. we have a a leader who now has second term. he's a president. he's a...
358
358
Nov 15, 2012
11/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 358
favorite 0
quote 0
can boehner get there if that's the case? >> if you look at eliminations of deductions, exemptions, credits, it doesn't get to you where we need to comply with the budget control act so the fact that we are examining an opportunity to perhaps look at either on higher income earners, whether it's $1 million or higher as opposed to marrying ourselves to 250 is a step in the right direction. i think the fact that there is discussion on this front initiated by the speaker and behind closed doors we'll get in detail. for the first time we're close and why throw away the opportunity. >> can i just mention how many jokes joe would have made about being behind closeds doors and consummating and that whole thing and that's why joe needs to be on the show and he's not. i'm doing a poor job that he would have made seven or eight jokes would have been made. let me just ask jared, the 39.6 in my mind seems like it is a bottom line, a starting point an an end point for the president. can you envision a deal being done on the fiscal cliff t
can boehner get there if that's the case? >> if you look at eliminations of deductions, exemptions, credits, it doesn't get to you where we need to comply with the budget control act so the fact that we are examining an opportunity to perhaps look at either on higher income earners, whether it's $1 million or higher as opposed to marrying ourselves to 250 is a step in the right direction. i think the fact that there is discussion on this front initiated by the speaker and behind closed...
277
277
Nov 16, 2012
11/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 277
favorite 0
quote 0
>> yeah, from boehner i am. the president has now painted himself -- painted those guys in to -- how many times has he drawn a line in the sand about that high right on 250. he's made a point and he can't possibly go back on that now, can he? >> i think he can. look, i think he's drawing a line on getting money from those people, there people making 250 and above. but he hasn't drawn a line on how he gets that money. he's said at his news conference i'm skeptical that you can do enough in loopholes and exclusions to get the money that we need for a deal from that group. but he also said i'm open to new ideas. so if there is in fact an effort to close some loopholes that gets you some of the way there, you can certainly see the president, i could anyway, compromising somewhere between 35 and 39.6 on a slightly higher rate. if shall be caomebody came up w source of revenue which didn't change the distribution of the tax burden, figure out a way to do it without a top rate. i kind of expect what's going to happen i
>> yeah, from boehner i am. the president has now painted himself -- painted those guys in to -- how many times has he drawn a line in the sand about that high right on 250. he's made a point and he can't possibly go back on that now, can he? >> i think he can. look, i think he's drawing a line on getting money from those people, there people making 250 and above. but he hasn't drawn a line on how he gets that money. he's said at his news conference i'm skeptical that you can do...
207
207
Nov 19, 2012
11/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 207
favorite 0
quote 0
at 1.6 and we're talking about four total so that's 2.4 to 1.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again i
at 1.6 and we're talking about four total so that's 2.4 to 1.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the...
266
266
Nov 14, 2012
11/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 266
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> twice where we were with boehner. but might be the beginning of bargain point. but you get 820 billion. so there's another 800 billion. at this point, the others are saying no cuts to medicare, social security, or anything else. and they have to find another 800 billion. >> the president did not say -- >> we know he has to cut some of those. >> my guess is the gop is saying they're looking at a trillion dollars as the number. >> and you saw what paul ryan said. the house was re-elected. so people re-elected those people in the house for a reason. it's a nonstarter. it's not going to happen. it's not going to be 1.6 billion. 1.6 trillion. to get to four trillion, that would be 2.4. so we said that. he'll go not 3-1 like simpson bowles. he's go one and a half to one. >> that's not going to happen either. >> but what bothers me -- >> the problem is nothing is going to happen. >> what bothers me is i do think you can get to a point where you raise taxes too much and you don't cut spending enough, where you're just funding entitlements by raising taxes and you don't
. >> twice where we were with boehner. but might be the beginning of bargain point. but you get 820 billion. so there's another 800 billion. at this point, the others are saying no cuts to medicare, social security, or anything else. and they have to find another 800 billion. >> the president did not say -- >> we know he has to cut some of those. >> my guess is the gop is saying they're looking at a trillion dollars as the number. >> and you saw what paul ryan...
193
193
Nov 12, 2012
11/12
by
CNBC
tv
eye 193
favorite 0
quote 0
you heard john boehner say that already. we've had voteses in the senate where we've gotten rid of tax credits. i think that's a given. and i think that the vast majority of measures agree with that. the question is how do you do that and how do you allow taxes to rise at the same time you fix the real problem and that's uncontrolled entitlement spending and a government that has grown massively. >> i think if the house stands for anything, it's cut government spending as tom coburn said and i think we'll have to do more of it. we heard the mandate in 2010 where it was a clear mandate cut spending and we did, we cut $900 billion in spending that he can't like painful tos us. >> we'll continue our call to rise bol politics and make a deal. oufr guests this morning include mike jackson and also david zaslav. and the head of maris group. and douglas holtz-eakin. >> let's talk about eurozone finance ministers meeting to discuss whether to release a new tranche of fund to go greece. the leaders are not expected it to okay the fun
you heard john boehner say that already. we've had voteses in the senate where we've gotten rid of tax credits. i think that's a given. and i think that the vast majority of measures agree with that. the question is how do you do that and how do you allow taxes to rise at the same time you fix the real problem and that's uncontrolled entitlement spending and a government that has grown massively. >> i think if the house stands for anything, it's cut government spending as tom coburn said...